R.R.K.TRIVEDI - (1.) In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and learned counsel for the parties agreed that this petition be decided finally at this stage.
(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition are that Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) published an advertisement on 10-5-1993 inviting applications for appointment as dealer for retail sale of petrol and diesel oil etc. at Saidpur, District Ghazipur. Petitioner Ajai Pratap Singh and respondent No. 5 Virendra Kumar along with many others made applications in response to the aforesaid advertisement. In this advertisement along with other conditions it was also provided that gross annual income of applicant and his spouse and dependent children put together should not exceed Rs. 50,000.00 in the last financial year. The applications after through scrutiny were forwarded to the Oil Selection Board. The candidates were interviewed on 26-61994 and after this interview respondent No. 5 was recommended for being appointed as dealer in retail outlet at Saidpur and on the basis of the recommendation of respondent No. 1 letter of intent was issued in favour of respondent No. 5 on 8-7-1994.Challenging the aforesaid appointment of respondent No. 5 petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The challenge is on the ground that gross annual income of respondent No. 5 and his family during the relevant period, namely the financial year 1992-93 (assessment year 1993-94) was much more than Rs. 50,000.00 and respondent No. 5 was not eligible for being considered for appointment. It is contended that respondent No. 5 is a big businessman of district Ghazipur. He is partner of Firm M/s Deep Chand Ram Chand dealing in the business of fertilisers in district Ghazipur and also enjoyed share profit and interest in the said Firm. Respondent No. 5 is also partner of Firm M/s Raj Kumar and Company situate at Saidpur. Respondent No. 5 filed his income tax return for the assessment year 1993-94 (financial year 199293) in individual capacity showing his income as Rs. 51,615.00 on 18-2-1994. It is further contended that respondent No. 5 had also submitted his income tax return in Hindu Undivided Family capacity for Rs. 22,418.00 on 18-2-1994 for the same financial year. Smt. Pratima Devi, wife of respondent No. 5, is partner of M/s. Arvind and Company, Saidpur, Ghazipur, which is dealing in wholesale business of cloth. She had also submitted her income tax return showing Rs. 28,600.00 as annual income on 18-2-1994 for the same assessment year. It is further submitted that Vineet Kumar, son of respondent No. 5, is living with his father and is also engaged in business and he had submitted his income tax return of Rs. 28,300.00 on 28-2-1994 for the relevant assessment/financial year. Similarly, another son in the family Shri Shantanu Kumar is proprietor of firm M/s. Shanti Pratishthan, Saidpur, Ghazipur and in the financial year 1992-93 had submitted his income tax return of Rs. 28606.00 on 30-8-1993. It is submitted that respondent No. 5, his wife and both sons are living together and are engaged in their respective business. On the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the gross annual income of respondent No. 5 was much more than Rs. 50,000.00 and he could not be appointed dealer and the letter of appointment is liable to be quashed on this ground.
(3.) Respondents filed counter affidavit 1\refuting the allegations made and it was said that the gross annual income of respondent No. 5 is below Rs. 50,000.00. In fact the gross income of respondent No. 5 for the financial year 1992-93 was Rs. 39615.00 which has been accepted finally by the Income Tax Officer. It is further said that a wrong statement in the original return was filed and after noticing the mistake a revised return was filed under S. 139(5) of the Income-tax Act furnishing correct information with regard to income. It has been further submitted that wife of respondent No. 5, Smt. Pratima Devi had no independent income. Whatever income has been shown in the return filed by her, is as guardian of Km. Nitu, minor sister of respondent No. 5. The return has been signed by her on behalf of the minor and the income shown therein has nothing to do with the gross income of respondent No. 5. It is stated that Smt. Pratima Devi has been appointed guardian of the minor under a will executed by the late grand-father of respondent No. 5. It has also been submitted that Firm M/s Deep Chand Ram and Raj Kumar and Company have been assessed separately as Firm, hence share income of Sri Virendra Kumar from these Firms, cannot be included in his individual income as provided under S. 10(2-A) of the Income-tax Act. It is also contended that this objection is a non-existent objection which has been raised in writ petitions filed one after another challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as dealer. The petition is highly belated and is liable to be dismissed on ground of laches.;